I Am Not a Sinner

Sometimes I kill mosquitoes, but that doesn't make me an exterminator.  I built a fence in our back yard, but that doesn't make me a builder. I sometimes tell jokes, but that doesn't make me a comedian. I have a cajón I play sometimes, but that doesn't make me a percussionist (believe me!). Sometimes I sin, but that doesn't make me a sinner.

I first learned this lesson from reading a book by Neil Anderson on spiritual warfare. There is not a single time that God's people are called "sinners" in the Bible. In the Bible "sinners" are always those on the outside of the Kingdom.

When I say "I am not a sinner," I'm not saying I don't ever sin. I'm saying that's not who I am.

Paul says something very interesting toward the end of Romans 7 that I have pondered for a very long time. In Romans 7, Paul talks about his inability to do the good he wants to do. That's not the part I had trouble with. However, what Paul says below seemed like some sort of denial; it didn't feel right. Yet there it was in the Bible, and Paul says it twice! Here are the passages (I underlined the part I was having trouble with):

And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. (Ro 7:16–17)  

For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. (Romans 7:19–20)  

Now, what is this? Doesn't that look like a cop-out? It sounds like, "Hey, I did it, but it wasn't me doing it." Huh? How does that even make sense?!

Unpacking Romans 7:7-25

Before I tell you how I see that passage now, let's do a little study first and compare this with the following chapter.

In the Greek language (unlike English) it is usually not necessary to say "I" (Greek ego - ἐγώ). Like Spanish, one can assume that I'm talking about my by the conjugation of the verb. For instance in Spanish I can say "Voy a la casa," meaning "I'm going home." You'd know I meant I was going because of the verb form I used. If I said "Vamos a la casa," you'd know I meant "Let's go home." I don't need to say "Yo voy a la casa," which would sound a bit like "I, I'm going home." I'd only add the "Yo" ("I"), if I wanted to emphasize who was the one going home.

Sorry for the Spanish lesson, but here's the point: in this regard Greek is the same. Unlike English, we can know that Paul is talking about himself by the verb conjugation he uses. The really interesting thing is that in Romans 7:7-15, Paul uses the pronoun for "I" twenty-three (23) times (counting in Greek, not English). He does not use it at all in Romans 8--not once.

Isn't that interesting? What does that mean?

Romans 7:7-25 is Paul talking about his inability to do what he knows is right. Romans 8:1-17 is about how to live rightly before God. What is present in Romans 8, that seems to take the place of "I" (ἐγώ) is flesh (Greek: sarx, σάρξ).* When Paul does this we learn something about what he means by "flesh" namely it's me - but more specifically it's me without the Spirit (cf., Rom 7:18). It's us, trying to do it on our own, without God's help.

What we find in Romans 8 is that with the Spirit's help we can set our minds on what the Spirit desires (Rom 8:5), that we can live in the realm of the Spirit (Rom 8:9), that by the Spirit we can put to death the misdeeds of the body (Rom 8:13). In other words, in ourselves we have no hope to live a godly life, but empowered by the Spirit we can and should expect to! If Romans 7 seems like moral failure, Romans 8 offers moral victory! But it's a victory that is won by the Spirit living in us, and by being led by Him--that is by following His lead.

Who or What is Doing the Sinning?

Now let's get back to the strange statement of Paul in Romans 7:17, 20: it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

What is Paul talking about here? Paul is talking about his inner conflict and his inability to understand himself in this. He does what he hates, and what he wants to do, he can't. He resolves the dilemma by stating that it's not him, but something living in him causing the problem. He even names that thing living in him as "sin."

We get the idea that Paul thinks about the sin living in him as not really him. The problem isn't him, the problem is not who he is; he isn't the problem. Something else is the problem. It's in him but it isn't him.

My theological and spiritual upbringing did not equip me to understand what Paul was actually saying here. I picked up that I was sinful by nature--even as a believer, and that's why I sinned. That is to say, when I sinned I was just being my true self. I was assured that I would still be forgiven, but I felt doomed to live a sinful life, until I died or the Lord returned. I was a sinner, but I was still under grace. I must admit, I did not feel much incentive for self-improvement! Why try, when failure is guaranteed! When I got myself more edumacated, I equated the endeavor with the myth of Sisyphus, condemned by the Greek gods to push a boulder up a hill, but whenever the boulder got near the top, it would roll back to the bottom: an act of eternal frustration.

The teaching of Neil Anderson I referenced above began to change my understanding of who we really are in Christ, and eventually how to understand Paul's statements above. The New Testament always speaks of believers as "saints" - that is "holy ones." It never qualifies this, to let us think that we are to understand this in some potential sense. Most of the Epistles begin "To the saints in..."

We are supposed to believe the Bible, right? So if they Bible always talks about believers as holy ones (saints), and if we are believers, what are we? Holy ones, of course. And who are the "sinners?" Those outside the Kingdom; those who are not (yet) believers. We are no longer identified as sinners, because "sinner" is no longer our identity.

In Christ we are a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come (2Cor 5:17). In our new selves, we are not what we were.

When sin shows up, what happens is that there's something going on that is out of sync with our new identity. It's not the real us; it's not the real me. That's not who I really am. That is exactly what Paul is saying. When we sin, we are acting outside our true character, we are behaving in a way inconsistent with our true identity. In fact, it's not even us doing it--not the real us.

The "sin living in us" is more like a parasite living in our intestine. It's foreign. It doesn't belong. It shouldn't be there. While parasites can't make us sin, they can make us physically ill. In the same way sin living in us, even though it isn't a part of us, can make us spiritually ill. The problem isn't us, it's something that doesn't belong, staying in residence after it's been evicted.

When God gave the land of Canaan to the Israelites as they crossed the Jordan, led by Joshua, the land was theirs, but they still had to "take possession" of it. They still had battles to fight. The peoples who lived their, still lived there, but they weren't Israelites, so they didn't belong. God, through Joshua, and subsequent leaders, removed them incrementally. Similarly, there's stuff in me that doesn't belong. God is removing it incrementally. But the important thing to know for this blog entry is that it doesn't belong, it's not supposed to be there, and I'm under no obligation to live with it (Rom 8:12-13).

This isn't the same as some of what's come out of the holiness movement. I'm not saying we can get a second blessing to keep us from ever sinning again. I'm not saying we don't sometimes sin. I am saying that, if I sin, that doesn't make me a "sinner" any more than putting bread in a toaster makes me a cook.

I am not a sinner. That's not who I am. I'm a saint--a holy one. God says so.

-----------------------------
*The NIV84 wrongly (IMHO) puts "sinful nature" here; the NIV2011 rightly reverts to "flesh."

Authority in Kingdom Relationships

In this blog I'm going to be reflecting on the way we think about authority affects our relationships with fellow believers in the Kingdom of God.

I won't be talking about the authority the Kingdom of God has over the kingdom of darkness, or the authority the Kingdom of God has over sickness, brokenness, death, etc. That would make an interesting blog too. But not today.

What is authority?

There are two main answers to this question, even in just using everyday language (at least in English language). I'll talk about those two types and then take a look at what the Bible says about authority.

The first answer: Authority is telling people what to do, and making them do it.
The second answer: Authority is influencing others' hearts and lives through one's identity, experience and expertise.

Let's look at both of them along with some common examples.

The first type of authority is what we find in the military, and among police, the fire service and ems (Emergency Medical Services). The way we know who has the authority in a given situation is by looking at the position of the people involved. A Major has authority over a Captain, who has authority over a Lieutenant, etc. There is a hierarchy of power and authority that gives order to the relationships, and lets everyone know their place in that hierarchy.

The down-side of this structure is that it must be enforced to work. There must be consequences for disobedience, for failure to follow orders. There must be a reason for those under authority to do what they're told, beyond the charisma of the one with the position - not because charisma and rapport in leadership aren't important (they are!), but because there are always those who will not submit to it without some sort of coercive incentive, and because there are times when fear would make someone hesitate from doing what is necessary. There is much more I could say about this, but I'm not writing a book!

This type of structure is extremely helpful in crisis situations, such as a battlefield, or a domestic emergency scene (such as a fire, a hostage situation, a medical emergency). In an emergency there simply isn't time to take an inventory of what jobs the responders would prefer. Conferring for the purpose of consensus takes too long. If we already know who the decision-makers are, the whole company can respond quickly and address the situation before it gets worse. I trust this is obvious. As a former volunteer firefighter and fire captain, I fully understand why this authority structure is so helpful.

The Biblical support for this type of authority can be found in Romans 13:4: For he [the governor/ruler] is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

The second type of authority is found in people like Emily Post (an authority on etiquette), Dr. Phil (on relationships, etc.), Neil Anderson (on spiritual warfare), and others such as John Piper, Tim Keller, Bill Johnson, John & Carol Arnott - some of whom are authorities in some circles and not in others. This is the kind of thing that makes us say that someone is an authority on Shakespeare, or on certain medical procedures, or wood-working, or Egyptology.

We look for these authorities when we go into a research library, or research something on the internet. We don't want to hear what just anyone has to say, we want to know what the experts have to say--the authorities in the fields we are looking into.

This is not a denial of what is sometimes called "positional authority" (see the first type of authority, above), it's just a different way of looking at authority. In fact, these two types are often comingled, so that the ones with the position of authority, are the best ones for the job.

In churches, and other Christian organizations, positions and positional authority is necessary to make the organization work. But this works best when we fill positions with people who are already walking in the kind of authority the position recognizes or confers. We want to install elders who are already functioning as and recognized as spiritual leaders in the church in some way. We want treasurers who we know to be good at managing bank accounts, budgets, etc. (even if it's just their family budget). We want directors of organization who have some ability to lead people, administrators who have shown they can administer, and so on.

What is Biblical Authority?

I believe the starting point for understanding Biblical authority is Jesus teaching on authority in Matthew 20:25-28 (cf. Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:24-30).

²⁵Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. ²⁶Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, ²⁷and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— ²⁸just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (NIV)

In this text there are at least 6 things we can learn from Jesus about authority:

1.     Authority as it is practiced outside the kingdom is not the model for authority in the Kingdom. (vv.25-16a)

2.     The model of authority in the Kingdom is not structured as a chain of command. (vv.25-16a)

3.     Authority in the Kingdom serves others in the Kingdom. (vv.26-27)

4.     Authority in the Kingdom does not seek to be served (v.28a).

5.     Authority in the Kingdom is sacrificial for the sake of the many (v.28b).

6.     Jesus’ way of exercising His authority is our model (v.28).

Explanation of these points:
#1 Jesus says, in effect, look at the world in and around Judea. Do you see how they do authority? Don't do it that way here.

#2 Jesus points out the hierarchy of rulers lording it over, who have high officials over them. This model he specifically rejects: Not so with you. This passages follows directly upon the request of James and John's mother to set up her two sons over the rest of the disciples. Jesus is saying: that's not how things are supposed to work in my Kingdom.

#3 It's clear that Jesus sees that the nature of authority in the Kingdom is about serving others. That is, authority in the Kingdom by nature seeks to serve those under that authority.

#4 Jesus, pointing to himself points out that He never used His authority to get others to serve Him. He is not the General ordering the Lieutenant to get him a cup of coffee. He is the General getting the cup of coffee for the Lieutenant.

#5 The nature of the authority as service, extends to the point of being self-sacrificial. The General doesn't send the Privates to die on the battlefield, while he is safe behind the lines. The General goes out on the battlefield and to die, so that the Privates stay safe.

#6 Strongly implied in that last verse, is that we take Jesus' way of relating to His disciples in His authority as our model for relating to others in our authority. To do that thoroughly, we would need to do an in depth study of the relational dynamics between Jesus and His disciples throughout His ministry. (I'll leave it to the reader to do that.)

But is this for all relationships in the Kingdom, or just how the Apostles are to relate to each other?

Some commentaries I consulted suggested that Jesus was obviously not talking about the relationship of the Apostles to the churches, but just the Apostles as they related to each other. Others suggested that Jesus is talking about all relationships in the Kingdom where there is an authority aspect in play. Which is right?

Let's look at the Bible again. I'll give two examples where the Apostles apply the principles from the passage above to the churches:

Paul following up on a major ethical issue in the church in Corinth:

Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy, because it is by faith you stand firm. (2Cor. 1:24)

This is Paul's interpretation of his actions in 1Corinthians 5. He is not claiming the right of Apostolic authority over them, requiring their obedience, that is, he was not trying to lord it over your faith. Instead he interprets his actions as working with you for your joy, because it is by faith you stand firm. In reading 1Corinthians 5 in this light, one can see Paul using persuasion; he wants them to agree with him on how to look at and deal with this situation. He speaks forcefully, but still wants them to buy in to his way of approaching the issue.

Peter addressing the elders of the scattered churches says:

Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (1Pet. 5:2–3)  

It's clear here, that Peter is applying the same principles we find in the Matthew 20 passage to the relationship between elders and the church in which they exercise authority. It's also evident that Peter is urging what I referred to above as type 2 authority. Note this: eager to serve and being examples to the flock.

I'm going to briefly mention Paul's letter to Philemon
In this letter Paul keeps balking at using his authority to tell Philemon what he so obviously wants him to do: set Onesimus free. Although he urges, appeals to, and drops some obvious and strong hints, he doesn't tell Philemon what to do. He leaves the final decision in his hands.

Here are some examples of what I mean:

Phm 8-9a Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I appeal to you on the basis of love. 

Phm 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced.

Phm 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.  (BTW, the word for “obedience” here can also be translated “response/answer”)

What seems so clear in a careful reading of this passage is that Paul is empowering Philemon with all he needs to do the right thing, but not by directly telling him what to do. In effect, he, by persuasion, destroys the foundation for slavery in Philemon's heart & mind, but let's him be the one to push the wall over. This is such a great example of what Biblical authority is supposed to look like.

Church Office, AKA, the 5-Fold Ministry

Ephesians 4:11-16
Some of my friends would challenge on grammatical grounds whether we should see 5 offices or 4 in Ephesians 4:11 (seeing pastors and teachers as one office). I'm not going to debate the point here, though I'm attracted to the way someone put it, there are grammatically 4, but practically 5. Regardless, resolving that question won't help us answer ours, so I'll just leave it where it lies.

After listing these positions in the church, Paul gives us the purpose of these positions. The purpose of these places of positional authority is not to consolidate power, it's not to get people to obey, or keep them in line, or make them do what they wouldn't do otherwise. The purpose of these offices is clearly stated: to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the whole body of Christ may be built up (Eph 4:12). This includes exercising that authority in such a way that the result is spiritual maturity (Eph 4:13), giving the members strength to stand firm in the face of lies and opposition (Eph 4:14), and helping them grow spiritually into their place in the body (Eph 4:15), all because the body is not held together by these offices, nor those who hold them, but by Jesus Himself (Eph 4:16).

The biggest problem with authority as telling people what to do, is that it creates dependence. If you can only do what the pastor says, if nothing can be done, unless someone in authority orders it, we become dependent on those in authority to do anything. Domineering parents, who control everything that happens in the home, create dependent children, who do not have the maturity to stand up to the temptations of the world, once they are out of the nest. Domineering spiritual leaders create spiritually immature followers, who don't know what to do, unless they are told.

But authority in the church, as Paul says in this passage, is not for creating dependence, but maturity. Authority in the church is supposed to be exercised in a way that develops spiritual maturity in others. Parents of young children know that they must be told what to do. But as children grow up, they transition from being told, to being persuaded (often by consequences, enforced or 'natural'). To be an adult means you know how to navigate through the many confusing choices in our world, and if we mess up, what to do about it. Similarly, in the Church, the purpose of authority is to help people grow up into their own identity in Christ, until they know how to respond to the wind and the waves of change, temptation, and doctrine that are sure to come.

To put it simply what my Reformed friends call the 4/5 offices, and my Pentecostal friends call the 5-Fold Ministry, exists for the church, not the other way around. They exist to serve the church, not to be served by it.

What about Hebrews 13:17?

Some of you may already be thinking of the one place where we seem to be told to obey our leaders (following the Type 1 style of authority noted above). Let's take a quick look at that, in context.

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Heb 13:17)  

Most translations have Obey here. But if you hover over the link, you'll see the NIV2011, which has Have confidence in.... What's going on?

The word for Obey in the original language (Greek) is “Peitho” (πείθω), not one of the more common words for "obey" in the New Testament. The basic meaning of the word, is "to persuade," and in the passive voice (as here) "to be persuaded," or "believe." It has the sense of following someone's example. It doesn't mean what the word obey usually implies in the English language: comply whether you like it or not. But it does mean that one's actions will be shaped by the one you are persuaded by. In other words, we ought not to see in this verse a call for people to blindly obey their spiritual leaders, but to do something along the lines of what verse 7 in this chapter says.

Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. (Heb 13:7)  

If the author of Hebrews wanted to emphasize the relationship of member to leader as one of obedience, he would have had to make his point more clearly than he did. As it is, he urges them to imitate [the] faith of their leaders (v.7), or to obey/be persuaded by them, suggesting that the relationship is not one of submissive/dominant, but of learner/model.

How does this affect the marriage relationship?

I'm so glad you asked!

Let's take a look at Paul's most extensive discussion on the marriage relationship: Ephesians 5:21-33. (I'm not going to put that entire long passage here. If you have a Bible handy, you may want to open it to that passage.)

You'll note first of all, that I'm beginning with verse 21, not verse 22. Although most English versions make a split between verses 21 and 22, in the original language, verses 21 and 22 are part of the same sentence. In fact, that rather long, Pauline sentence begins with verse 18! The "submitting to one another" in verse 21, is fourth in a list of participles that tell us what it means to be filled by the Spirit. When we are filled with the Spirit, according to Paul, we will Speak to one another..., Sing and make music... be always giving thanks..., and Submit to one another...  To be more literal we would read this passage something like this "Be filled with the Spirit, speaking..., singing..., giving thanks..., submitting..."

So, one thing it means to be filled with the Spirit is to Submit to one another... (v.21). That's because we need each other. Paul says in Philippians 2:3 ...in humility consider others better than yourselves. Here's how I understand that passage: God is at work in your life in ways He's not at work in mine. Some things in you are better than those things in me. There is no one I can't learn from and become a better person than I am now, if I am ready to receive from them. Submitting to each other (back to our Ephesians passage now), has that benefit and blessing. The moment I believe there is no one for me to submit to, is the moment I believe that I have 'arrived' spiritually, and therefore bought into a lie.

A further aspect of submission is one that, if it were present in some fallen leaders, it may have prevented their fall. When we submit to each other, we invite them to speak into our lives, speak truth to us. We invite them to show us our 'gold' and help us see our 'muck.' Too many times, leaders surround themselves with people that submit to them, but to whom they will not submit to. The results are almost always the same: their ministry collapses. I'll not point to specific examples, but know that this happens in small ministries as well as big ones. 

Paul applies this principle of submission to one another, to the church first and then to marriage. 

In verse 22 of our passage the word 'submit' does not occur in the Greek text. It literally says (from verse 21) "Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ, wives to your own husbands as to the Lord..." Paul moves without a breath from submission as applied generally, to a more specific application in the context of the marriage relationship.

Let's not pull any punches here, The way that wives are called to relate to their husbands requires surprising devotion: as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. That's a tall order! My goodness! There's not much wiggle-room in here is there!

Let's take a look at the word "submit" though. This word literally means to place oneself under. We should rightly infer that here it means to place oneself under the authority of one's husband. (I'm not going to address the hotly debated concept of headship here, since even if we resolved it, it wouldn't help us, as I hope we'll all see as the rest of my discussion unfolds.). It means to place oneself under someone or something else.

However, it's also important to note what it doesn't mean. Submit does not mean to allow oneself to be coerced. It does not imply blind obedience. Being connected with "out of reverence for Christ" strongly implies, that if a husband should tell his wife to do something that would violate a wife's reverence for Christ, she should refuse. If he tells her, to go and sacrifice to the goddess Dianna (the celebrated deity of Ephesus), she should tell him that she won't do it.

In thinking about the concept of the wife submitting to her husband, it's very significant to know one more important fact: the Bible nowhere, in not a single place, tells wives to obey their husbands. Nor does it tell husbands to make their wives obey them. Never. Not once. Anywhere. Look it up yourself, if you must. Paul does tell children to obey their parents, and slaves to obey their masters (chapter 6), but he doesn't tell wives to obey their husbands. Not here, not anywhere.

Whatever submission means it is not a synonym for obey.

I need to say something about husbands here too, don't I? If I don't, this whole thing would like like a one-sided submission, when this section on marriage in Ephesians 5 is introduced with submit to one another.

Husbands are called (IMHO) to even greater selflessness than wives are. Look at this: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Ephesians 5:25). Paul doesn't stop there, but let's pause for a moment. How does Christ love the church? How much? What does He do for her? Remember our passage above: I did not come to be served, but to serve. A husband who treats his wife as his 'gopher' or his live-in maid, is not treating her as Christ treated the church. 

But wait, there's more! ...and gave himself up for her means that husbands are to relate to their wives self-sacrificially. They are to lay down their lives for the sake of their wives. That's a Christ-like husband.

Further, the husband's job is to make his wife look brilliant: radiant, stain and wrinkle free (Eph 5:27). Pointing out all her mistakes and failures to her or anyone else, is certainly contrary to what it means to present her as holy and blameless.

Before moving on, let me say one more thing about this to married couples. Wives, it's not your job to make sure your husband does his. Husbands, it's not your job to make your wife do hers. Wives: submit to him as the church does to Jesus; Husbands: love her like Christ loves the church. Help each other, encourage each other in your respective parts in the relationship, but the very nature of each of your places in the relationship prevents you from putting forcing the issue on the other.

In most cultures, the husband has authority over his wife. In some relationships wives seem to have the authority. Whoever actually has it: use it to bless the other partner; don't use it to get your way. Period.

The Bottom Line

As we have looked at these texts above, and as we reflect on the nature of authority in the church and in the kingdom, I believe we must come to one conclusion:

The only legitimate purpose of authority in the Kingdom of God is to serve and empower those under that authority.

Any other purpose is from the wrong kingdom.

 

Stepping into the Supernatural: Why it Matters

I've been thinking about a post like this for a while and just wasn't sure how to start, or how. I'm still not sure, but I'm moving forward anyway (a little bit like how it is to step into the supernatural!).

What Makes us Avoid the Supernatural?

I've been in discussion where the word "supernatural" was considered an illegitimate word. For some the word "supernatural" suggests that what God does is not natural to Him. These folks don't deny what is commonly called the miraculous, it just says it's not above God's nature. For others, on the opposite side of the spectrum, the idea of anything supernatural is just plain bunk, deception, or even worse (among some dispensationals and other cessationists): demonic in origin.

For the vast majority of Reformed and Evangelical folks, supernatural is a word we would use to talk about the miraculous in the Bible, and maybe not so much about anything that happens in our day. We're often theologically, or functionally cessationists, though we might concede an exception to the rule here or there.

I'll simply state what I mean by the word "supernatural:" stuff that happens in the observable realm that has a cause in the unseen realm of angels, demons and, of course God. For the purposes of this blog, I'll only be addressing those things God does directly or perhaps at times through His ministering angels.

Now, to answer the question I posed as the heading for this section: I think we prefer to avoid the supernatural, for two main reasons. First, it messes with our scientific, empirical world-view, that discounts anything unobservable as less than real (or at least less real). Second, it suggest that there is something that can directly affect us beyond our direct knowledge or control.

A brilliant example of the first reason for avoiding the supernatural was told to me by a friend. A man was miraculously and instantly healed of a physical problem in a regular worship service in a non-Pentecostal church. The healing was obvious to all who saw it (not just "no more pain"). After the service someone approached the pastor and asked "So, what do you think really happened?" The worldview of the one asking the question had no room for the supernatural, and so sought a natural explanation for what he just saw.

I don't have a particular example to illustrate the second reason we prefer to avoid the supernatural, but I think it's actually the most common. We love to be in control. We prefer to be in control. We often deny, in a way reminiscent of addicts discussing their addiction, that we actually are in complete control of our destinies. It's all up to us. It's the subtext of almost everything Disney has ever produced. In my view, it's also why some Christians always try to find a direct (usually moral) cause for natural disasters. It gives the illusion of control in that, if we don't do that, it won't happen to us.

The Biblical worldview is nothing like either of these objections. Throughout Scripture we meet people who are not in control of their destinies, but seem to be along for the ride. Two shining examples of this are Joseph and Esther, both of whom rise to places of power at just the right time to rescue their people from disaster. The Biblical message in both cases is that God is working, behind the scenes, unseen (the book of Esther doesn't even mention God), and yet clearly God gets done exactly what He intends to do.

A third sort of rejection of the supernatural is almost not worth mentioning, but it's also present: we reject the idea of the supernatural, because we don't like it. We'd prefer an existence without the possibility of demons (e.g.), or a God who can do stuff that affects us without our knowledge or permission. So, we simply assert it doesn't exist. It's the logical equivalent of putting one's fingers in one's ears and loudly singing "la la la la la" until any counter argument has finished presenting itself. The silliness of such an approach is surpassed only by the number of people who actually make use of it.

I'll discuss one more important reason for our hesitation below.

What if the Supernatural is Supposed to be Normal for Christians?

Actually, the supernatural is normal for Christians (at least orthodox ones)! We believe that we cannot come to faith in Christ, unless the Holy Spirit moves us to faith. On this point both Calvinists and Arminians are in agreement (at least the Arminians I know)! Further, we Calvinists believe that it is also by God's grace that our faith is sustained throughout our life time. That is, God's Spirit is at work in us helping us sustain that faith He first produced in us. We also believe that the Holy Spirit is always at work sanctifying us (making us holier and holier) from spiritual infancy to greater and greater maturity. That is all supernatural!

But what about the possibility of supernatural activity that affects, not merely our spiritual life, but our natural life? Here's where we Reformed types (and many Evangelicals) begin to balk. Does God heal a broken bones in our day? Does He heal people of illnesses? Does He give, what Pentecostals and Charismatics call 'words of knowledge' to people, that is, specific information about people they could not know otherwise (c.f. John 4:17-18)? Does He still give sight to the blind, open deaf ears, raise the dead? I'm not asking if He can, I'm asking if He does.

Documentaries such as The Finger of God, and Holy Ghost are fascinating in that they capture on film actual healing and other miracles. While some could be explained without resorting to anything supernatural, many, many others cannot. If you haven't seen these, I'd recommend them, if not just to challenge your assumptions about how God is at work in our day.

What if the gospel is supposed to march in step with signs and wonders? What if it's not only the 72 who were sent out to Heal the sick who are there and tell them "The kingdom of God is near you." (Luke 10:9); what if we are to do what they did too? What if Jesus' intention in bringing the kingdom was not to bring simply a teaching about it, but to demonstrate the Kingdom's power wherever it went?

One striking thing about the the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, is that on the heals of his renowned sermon in Athens (Acts 17:22-31), he went directly to Corinth. He says this about his visit there:

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power. (1Cor. 2:1–5, emphasis added)  

And later this:

But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. (1Cor. 4:19–20)  

Rereading the events at the Areopagus (sometimes called "Mars Hill") in Athens in Acts 17, we find two striking things in Luke that seem to take on more meaning given what we find in the above passages. First, we hear Luke introduce the famous speech in Athens by saying of the Athenians and others there that they ...spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas. (Acts 17:21), and follows the message by stating A few men became followers of Paul and believed... (Acts 17:34 - emphasis added: "few" or "some," not "many"). Luke doesn't present Paul's sermon at the Areaopagus as the roaring success most of us have attributed to this wonderfully contextualized sermon.


One More Objection to Expecting the Supernatural in the Christian Life:

This objection is so insidious, it can't be dismissed: I know lots of Christians who have never seen a miracle, a healing, a deliverance, a word of knowledge, or anything like that. Are you saying they aren't Christians, or that their faith is deficient in some way?

There are actually three objections in the above, and I hope I can deal with them honestly and in a way that doesn't look like I'm setting up a straw dog.

The first part of the objection "have never seen" is really an appeal to experience, right? Many, many genuine Christians have never experienced a miracle, either for themselves or witnessed it first hand. I know this is true. It was true of me for a long time after I became a Christian. Here's the insurmountable problem with that argument: experience can't dictate theology. That is a lack of experiencing something cannot be the grounds for a theology against others experiencing that sort of thing. While experience can't give us a theology of the supernatural happening today (which some do experience), neither can a lack of such experiences give us a theology that denies that these things can happen. If we are going to either deny or affirm theologically that the supernatural occurs in our day, we need something beyond someone experiencing it, and another not experiencing it.

Would the experience of some Christians with the supernatural imply that Christians who don't have such an experience mean they are not Christians? Let me be blunt: No. We are not Christians by what we do, or by what we fail to do. We are Christians by grace, through faith. But neither does the lack of such an experience by some Christians mean that they ought not have them, nor that they are not important.

The third objection is more subtle, but can't be avoided. It seeks to dismiss the dissonance between some Christians experiencing supernatural things and others not, as a sort of tacit elitism by those experiencing these things. If one group of believers has something that another set of believers doesn't, is one set better than the other, because it has it? Is one set of believers more Christian?

Before addressing this valid concern, let me first pause and suggest that it's a really bad argument against the supernatural happening today. It doesn't hold any water at all. If the supernatural were a flim-flam job, merely the power of mental suggestion, group hypnosis, or wishful thinking, then what should be addressed are the lies that support the view that the supernatural occurs today, and as the truth is exposed, the elitism will come crashing down with it in humble surrender.

The charge (or fear?) of elitism is a slippery one to defend against. But it is equally slippery to assert. Which group is the one with the problem? Having grown up in a Reformed context, I know what it is to feel like we Reformed folks have something the others just don't have, and we have it in a better way than they all do. If that isn't elitism, what is? Thankfully, I don't see that very much any more. BTW, I've seem a great deal of arrogance and elitism among Charismatics, Pentecostals, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Catholics, and just about any other group of people you might mention (even a few Mennonites, who can be very skilled at hiding it!).

The whole point of this blog, The Reformed Charismatic, is to suggest that the Reformed movement has a lot to learn from Charismatics and Pentecostals. It's also to suggest that Charismatics and Pentecostals have a lot to learn from the Reformed movement. Let me assure my Reformed brothers and sisters that some of the Pentecostals and Charismatics I know are just as nervous about the subject matter of this blog as you are! For many of them the supernatural is also the exception, not the rule.

Let's address the charge of elitism for a moment by contemplating whether a little humility is in order. Suppose the supernatural is supposed to be more "normal" in the Christian life. What if there's something we've been missing all along. If it's from God, why wouldn't we want it?

So, How Does This Work in Real Life?

I'm going to be very honest here: I'm still working this out. I've seen people healed, and others not--and not in the way I would have prioritized the healings, if I were God! I've seen weirdness go off on inscrutable tangents, and sincere people minister in the power of God in loving ways with damaging results (which, by God's grace was dealt with later). I've also seen lives so completely transformed that it was difficult to recognize (physically!) the new person from the old. I've prayed with people whose bones were broken, confirmed by X-Ray and healed (also confirmed by X-Ray). I've prayed with a woman who could hardly walk with a walker, until she walked the aisle to the front of the room (over 100 feet). I've spoken words of knowledge that were 'right on,' and prophetic words that turned out just as I'd spoken them. It's been confusing, and glorious, and sometimes a complete failure. I'd love to have a clear answer to the above question!

I guess I'm learning. One of the most important lessons I'm learning is that learning to minister in the supernatural, at least for me, is a process. It has included failure followed by breakthrough. I've also learned that there is no 'formula' to make it work when I want to. Thirdly, following God's prompting (and distinguishing them from my own urges), is another key in moving in the supernatural more consistently. The moment I think "I've got it" and try to move on my own, outside of conscious dependence on God, I fall flat. On the other time, even when I am aware of God's prompting (as best as I can discern them), and am consciously dependent on Him, still things don't always happen as I wish or expect.

Here's one conclusion I'm coming to: if the supernatural is real--if God really is moving in supernatural ways in our day--I want to be a part of what God is doing. And if what Paul says in 1Corinthians 2:1-5 still applies, then I need to do some work to align my ministry with that Biblical model.

Vain Repetition vs Persistence in Prayer

So, which is it? Are we supposed to keep on praying for our needs, or are we to avoid "vain repetition" in prayer?

The Problem, or Question

This question has come to me many times and I recently heard it raised again: If we keep on praying for the same thing over and over, isn't that just the "vain repetition" that Jesus told us not to do? Or are we supposed to pray and never give up?

Let's look at the "vain repetition" question first.

The phrase "vain repetition" comes to us in Matthew 6:7, from the King James version and a few other versions (NIV has "babbling"). It translates a Greek word (βατταλογέω - battalogeo), that most lexicons agree means to babble, stammer, speak without thinking, or something along those lines. It's a word rarely found outside of this passage and references to it, so it's difficult to be more specific. However, since it seems to be in parallel with "many words" (KJV "much speaking"). Here the Greek word (πολυλογία - polulogia) is much clearer, since it's composed of a known prefix (polu - many) and suffix (logia - words/speach).

Let's look at this verse in context (the relevant verse is underlined):

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him." (Matt 6:5-8, NIV)  

Jesus then goes on to teach us how to pray by giving us the Lord's Prayer.

We see here that Jesus is addressing hypocritical prayer in public (v.5), advising prayer away from the public eye (v.6), then our verse, and finally the reason we should avoid what verse 6 advises against: God already knows what we need.

So, what is it Jesus is asking us not to do in verse 6? Is he saying, just make your request known once and let God take it from there, or is he saying, don't believe your prayers will be heard better because of the many words you use when you pray? Or something else?

Before answering that question let's look at another passage on prayer:

Persistence in Prayer

In Luke 18:1-8, Jesus tells us a parable to teach us that we "should always pray and not give up" (v.1). Here's that passage:

Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared about men. And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’ “For some time he refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care about men, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually wear me out with her coming!’ ” And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:1–8, NIV)  

In this passage we have Jesus telling us via a parable that we should pray and not give up, and assure us that God's "chosen ones who cry out to him day and night" will get "justice, and quickly." (By the way that word for "quickly" is used also in Revelation 1:1; 22:6, where it is translated "soon.")

Does this mean that we can, and maybe should pray for the same thing more than once? Crying out for justice "day and night" certainly seems like it, doesn't it. Are there any examples of praying for the same thing more than once in the New Testament? I'm glad you asked. ;-)

In 1Thessalonians 3:10 we read this: "Night and day we pray most earnestly that we may see you again and supply what is lacking in your faith." Other similar references to praying for the same thing more than once can be found in these passages: Ephesians 1:16-17, Colossians 1:9-11, 2Thessalonians 1:11-12, 2Timothy 1:3. There are other passages where it is likely that what is being prayed for is more than a one-time thing, but in these passages it is undeniable.

Putting the Two Together

There is an important principle of Bible interpretation in which we let Scripture interpret Scripture. In this case, we can choose to look at Luke 18:1-8, and 1Thessalonians 3:10, in the light of one of the options for interpreting Matthew 6:7. We might try to take those passages (and the others mentioned above) as if they are still about only praying one time for one matter. We could construct a way to force them into that assumption, but it would not be easy. 

On the other hand, if we read the other passages first, and take them at face value, and then wonder if Matthew 6:7 can fit into that, we find a very easy and simple solution, requiring no secret or special knowledge of Greek, logic, or theological subtleties. Namely, Matthew 6:7 is not teaching us to pray for things only one time and then stop, Matthew 6:7 is telling us that when we pray, we should not pray as if wordiness in prayer can get us better results. I think that's right.

The models of and teaching about prayer in the Bible, encourage persistence in prayer, even about the same thing. The people of Israel cried out for centuries for deliverance from Egypt, and God finally responded to their cries and delivered them. Nowhere was their persistence in prayer chastised, or criticized. In fact, we don't find any place in Scripture where anyone is criticized for persistence in prayer, that is, praying over and over ("day and night") for the same thing.

Where Does the Idea of Praying "Just Once" Come From?

In my opinion, the idea that we should pray just once comes from faulty theology, or discouragement in prayer, or both.

A faulty theology can be easily constructed to demonstrate that God's sovereignty means He will accomplish His will, without our prayers (or other actions) at all. I have no doubt that God could work that way. However, according to Scripture God doesn't work that way.

We could also mediate the above bad theology, and create a concession to Scripture by asserting that God sometimes only acts in response to prayer, but once a petition is asked, there is no need to repeat it, since God has already heard it and will respond according to His will. Once again, I have no doubt that God could work that way, but according to Scripture, God sometimes does not respond until after a period of persistence in prayer.

The other place this idea comes from is just plain discouragement. In fact, in Luke 18:1, the word behind [they should always pray and not] "give up" (NIV), may be better translated [they should always pray and not] "be discouraged." Discouragement in prayer, especially about something we have brought to God many times, is not hard to understand.

In this discouragement, it is easy to look for a way out of a behavior that doesn't seems to be working. We can quite easily create a theology that explains away the unanswered prayer in a way that "gets us off the hook" (so to speak) from continuing to pray. We can jump on the "it must not be God's will" wagon and be carried off to the land of "not my responsibility to keep praying," or we can jump on the other wagons mentioned above and conclude that we shouldn't have been praying like that in the first place.

However, discouragement makes a poor motivation for theology. It makes a great motivation for Stoicism, or fatalism. We could accept our 'fate' with Stoic resolve, head held high, rising above our emotions, vulcanizing our hearts to our own pain. And some do this very thing. But it's not Biblical; that's not how prayer is modeled in Scripture; that's not what we're taught in Scripture.

Conclusion

In it's discussions on prayer, the Bible invites us to pour out our hearts to God. It rejects the sort of prayer that is empty of prayer's true purpose (for example, the prayers done for public admiration in Matthew 6), or prayer that tries to manipulate or impress God with eloquence or overcome His resistance by pestering Him with the amount of words we use to ask for simple matters. Nowhere is there even a hint that we should pray only so long for something and then stop. In fact, it seems we are to keep praying for justice (i.e., setting things right), until justice is granted (Luke 18:1-8). And since this is a parable, for anything that the Kingdom of God is expected to triumph over (e.g., illness, demonization, leprosy, death, sin, etc.).

I hope that this isn't a real issue for most folks who read this blog. But I do know that it is an issue for some. For them, I hope I've clarified the issues and encouraged you to keep on praying and not give up.

Arise! Shine! Your Light Has Come!

Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you. See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the Lord rises upon you and his glory appears over you. (Isaiah 60:1-2, NIV)  

I preached on this text on Sunday and decided to share some thoughts on this passage for today.

Darkness Covers the Earth

It doesn't take much to see the darkness covering the earth in our day. Evil seems to get all the headlines: Ferguson & New York killings and response; ISIS continues to kill almost everyone that isn't ISIS; the lost girls of Nigeria are still lost. Even the natural realm seems to be corrupted: Ebola, Cancer, Alzheimer's, Hurricanes, first drought and now flooding in California. This is to say nothing of spiritual darkness: Robin Williams committed suicide; domestic abuse in the NFL; the continued attacks on Christianity and Christians across the globe; waning church attendance; and a general spiritual malaise and apathy even in many congregations.

The world can be a pretty dark place at times. It can seem overwhelming. If you look at it long enough and closely enough, it's hard not to conclude that hopelessness is the only rational attitude.

It was into a world as dark as ours, and in many ways even darker that Jesus was born. Jesus is born into the Roman world, an empire run by thugs, by intimidation, by public torture and execution and by mercilessly putting down any real or imagined rebellion. They took money in large amounts in the form of taxes and tribute from wealthy and poor, robbing nations of their own inheritance, their own means to thrive.

There was terrible corruption in the Jewish religious system on the day Jesus was born. The high priest was now named for political reasons and not without the approval of Herod. Of this Herod it was said that you would be better off being his dog than his son, since his dogs had a better chance of not being killed by him. This is the Herod who rebuilt the temple. He made it beautiful on the outside, but all of temple worship was tainted by the corruption of compromise with Herod and Rome. While they managed to keep out idols and gentiles from the courts, they allowed the influence of Rome and of Herod in they way they led the people.

Even the Pharisees, who saw themselves as preserving pure Judaism, as opposed to the compromisers, exchanged the intent of the writings of Moses for mere laws and rituals that they believed were required by God for His blessings. They were severe in their devotion to the Bible they had (what we would call the Old Testament), but they had missed the point of turning their hearts to God, and became insistent on mere outward obedience.

Into that world, in an oppressed country, in a small, obscure village, in a barn (because there wasn't any other place for His parents to spend the night), Jesus enters as a baby. Small and helpless: Savior of the world. Before He was 2 years old, that corrupt king (Herod) tried to kill Him by killing all the boys in town.

Into our own personal dark worlds, Jesus comes. He still enters our world, so full of hopelessness and cynicism. He enters through the Spirit, Who still hovers over the dark places, where no one can really live. He enters lives damaged by bullying, by hurtful speech, by prejudices, by abuse of all kinds. He enters our darkness, sometimes unnoticed.

Jesus Appears

Into this dark world the Light begins to shine. Jesus came, not as in idea, not as a projection of hope, nor an apparition. He could be seen, heard, touched (1John 1:1-3). You could shake His hand. If you were close enough, you could count the whiskers on His chin. If He spoke, you could hear his accent. He became a human being, with all our limitations (though He never stopped being God). 

One of the craziest things you'll ever hear is: God was born as a human baby boy. If the Bible didn't say so, and I suggested it, you would have every right to reject the notion as both lunacy and heresy. The absurdity of this--of Jesus being the very Son of God--is one of the things that eventually got Him crucified.

The message Jesus brings is summed up by John in 1John 1:5: This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. When Jesus, being God enters our dark world He brings the light of God with Him. Into this dark world, so full of death enters Jesus: In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. (John 1:4–5). Jesus brings life and light and the darkness doesn't have a chance.

A New Day Dawns

The Lord Himself rises upon us! In Isaiah 60:1 we read the glory of the Lord rises upon us and in verse 2 we read the Lord rises upon us. God's glory and His presence in the Bible are often two ways of talking about the same thing. When God's glory rests over the tabernacle or fills the temple, it is God Himself, His presence resting over the tabernacle and filling the temple. This rising glory is the rising of God's presence upon His people.

His glory rises like the rising of the sun. It signals a new day. The night--the time of darkness--is over! The light chases off the darkness and we can see things as they really are.

The glory of the Lord rises upon us, His people. It doesn't rise over the whole earth (yet). But it does rise upon us. There may be (and is) darkness in our world, but there is supposed to be light among us.

Jesus birth signals the dawn of that new day. History pivots on that point in history. Our calendars reference that point in history (even though, through a miscalculation--Jesus was probably born about 4 B.C.). We who live on this side of Jesus birth, live in a new era. The impact of His birth, His life, His ministry, His death and resurrection, are still felt today.

The light He brings is an everlasting light (Isaiah 60:19). Light bulbs burn out. The sun will eventually burn out (in about 4 billion years or so). Nothing tangible lasts forever. All the light and enlightenment we humans find on our own is fading and temporary. But the light Jesus brings won't go out. It is still shining today. It shines in us who follow and believe in Him. It shines through us.

We can arise and shine, rather than merely arise and reflect, because the God's light is in us, through His Spirit. According to Jesus, we are the light of the world (Matthew 5:14-16). We have a light to shine in this dark world. It is the light of God's glory, God's presence among us and within us.

This is the day of Emmanuel: God with us (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23). And while we might think of Jesus as up in heaven, His promise is to always be with us (Matthew 28:20). He does that now through His Holy Spirit, Who is God with us and God within us.

So Get Up and Glow!

Arise and Shine! In every way the light of God has come into you, shine! In every way His light has transformed you, shine! Remove the bowl and let your light shine (cf. Matthew 5:15). Shine! Blaze! Glow! God Himself is with us and within us. Let Him shine out!

Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you. See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the Lord rises upon you and his glory appears over you. (Isaiah 60:1-2, NIV) 

Worship as a Basic Value

A recent blog post (Is Evangelical Worship Headed for a HUGE Crash?) shared on Facebook got me thinking. I responded to that Facebook post and in thinking about this week's blog, thought I'd write some of my thoughts on worship in the church.

Worship as a Staged Performance

I'm going to be harsh here: worship transitioned from congregational singing to staged performance (in some churches) because Evangelicals and those in the Reformed stream* do not value worship per se very highly--especially in comparison with teaching/preaching. In my experience in visiting some evangelical churches, it would not be difficult to conclude that they don't value worship per se at all.

What we have are songs performed with excellence, sometimes great songs with a great message. Yet, while on a sabbatical a couple of years ago, I often watched the musicians as they performed and got the distinct impression (against my assumptions) that the were singing and/or playing instruments, but not worshiping. They wanted to do a good job for the pastor and those gathered. But I can't help but think of this verse ...don't be like [those who] love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full (Matt. 6:5). I know that's harsh. But if we're singing to impress the pastor or people, and they're impressed, we get all we were after.

The shocking thing is that in some of these churches I visited the lack of participation by the people gathered there, was not a topic of interest to the worship leaders, the teachers, or anyone else that took hold of a microphone. No one said anything like "Join us in the next chorus," let alone "Let's worship our great God through song this morning...," or anything of the kind. It seemed fine that the people there weren't there to worship.

The height of irony came when in a few of these churches they would repeat the contemporary mantra: "Christianity is not a religion but a relationship" but then give neither evidence, nor model of doing any relating to God in the service! In at least one of those services where that mantra was spoken, there wasn't a single prayer said from those leading meeting. How can we relate to God without talking to Him, singing to Him, or even just waiting in His presence?! Despite the claim, the experience was religion without relationship - at least that's how I experienced it (and I was trying not to!)

What is clear to me as I visited those, and many other churches, is that while singing might be valued somewhat (if the lyrics have some important theological meaning), what's called "the worship time" is often just the warm-up act for the real reason we're there: the teaching (AKA message, AKA sermon). Judging only by what happens, the worship of God is not the main thing; teaching about Him (and what He wants, expects, or offers) is.

What Do I Mean by "Worship?"

For many, particularly among Evangelicals and Reformed, we have fuzzy ideas about what we mean by the term worship. From a practical perspective, it may mean: "what we do on Sundays' when we gather as God's people" - whatever that is, we call it 'worship.' In other words, worship = the Sunday service. Worship then is--and I hesitate to use the term, anticipating objections--a set of rituals called our "order of worship." (Charismatics and Pentecostals are not immune to this temptatation; it's just a different set of rituals.)

Here's my definition of worship: Worship is the heart directed toward God in adoration. Therefore, worship is primarily vertical: God directed. Even corporate worship, as we encourage each other is and should be much more vertical than horizontal. Worship is something that comes from within us, from our spirit, our heart. It is primarily an internal thing expressed externally.

Jesus said the kind of worshipers the Father seeks are those who worship in spirit (or the Spirit) and in truth (John 4:23-24). I don't think God is interested in musical "excellence" nearly as much as we are. What He is interested in (more than we are?) is what is going on in our hearts, the hearts of His people, as we worship.

We Reformed and Evangelical tend toward the intellect, much more than the heart. We're sort of suspicious of emotions and other heart stuff, and while we give it lip service and say things like "believe it with your heart, not just your head," we are still usually speaking to the intellect when we say it. I think that's why we tend to emphasize teaching so much, and also why we tend to devalue worship, or just not think about it as something to value.

But worship involves our entire being, not just our intellect, but our emotions too. They include the emotions of gladness, joy, gratitude (Psalm 100), and as I read the Psalms, it's hard to think of a human emotion that doesn't get caught up in worship somehow. In fact, worship must involve our whole being--all of who we are. Worship that is merely intellectual is as impoverished as worship that is merely emotional, or merely ritualistic, or merely music. It is supposed to involve heart, soul, mind and strength.

Intellectually-centered 'worship' will tend to raise the value of those things that address the intellect and devalue those things that don't. And this is, I think, what has happened in many Evangelical and Reformed churches. Even if we resist the tendency toward a performance-centered worship band, the songs sung are not always seen as of central or primary importance. Sometimes the opposite problem surfaces where congregational preferences replace authentic worship with mere singing of favorite Christian hymns and other songs. It happens because church leaders don't value authentic worship nearly as much as good, Biblical teaching, and so let it slide.

Worship as a Basic Value

Let me just say it: We value worship to the degree that we value the presence of God.

Now we believe that God is present with His people when they gather, whether we sense His presence or not. Right? If that's true, then what is the proper response to God's presence, if not worship? Is it not improper, if not offensive, to fail to worship God--in spirit and in truth--when He is among us? I mean really, truly, and from the heart worship Him. I don't mean sing 'peppy songs' or, grand and glorious hymns, or get all emotional; I mean worship as discussed above: hearts directed toward God Himself in adoration.

If the people who gather on Sundays don't know how to worship, we need to teach them, show them, help them, and lead them into authentic worship.

This is why I think we should just kill the role of "worship leaders" and resurrect in it's place the role of "lead worshipers." Just as there are those prayer warriors who embody prayer in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests... (Eph 6:18), there are those who embody and model worship in spirit and in truth. They should be encouraged and empowered to lead God's people in worship. I don't mean that they should worship in front for the people, but lead the people in worship. If they're not following, you're not leading (you're just out for a walk). Lead in a way that others follow.

The worship crash in the article above will happen, unless lead worshipers begin to focus on the worship of those who gather. The gathered should not be seen as the audience, but as the gathered worshipers. The band, the singers, the organist, pianist, guitarist, or whoever and however it's done in your church, should be there for the sake of helping the gathered to worship in spirit and in truth.

BTW, if we just change titles (worship leader to lead worshiper) and don't change expectations (of those leaders and the congregation), it won't help. I hope you understand that I'm not talking about new names for current ideas. I'm talking about changing job descriptions.

It's Not Just the Evangelicals and Reformed Who Are in Trouble Here

These same issues are also found among charismatic and Pentecostal groups. I've been to charismatic gatherings where worship was not highly valued; where good teaching and power-ministry were the center of focus. I've been to Pentecostal gatherings where the worship seemed more about the worship leader getting the gathered to respond in a certain way, than in focusing on God's presence.

The worship band, as performers for an audience, has not left charismatics, nor Pentecostals immune from its insidious influence. Let me suggest that the larger the church, and more professional the band, the greater the temptation to shift from God-focused congregational worship, to something having more to do with musical prowess and crowd-pleasing. (However, smaller churches are in no way exempt from this either!)

Two Concluding Questions for Worship Leaders, Lead Worshipers, Pastors, Preachers, etc.

1. If God showed up on a Sunday morning, would you notice, and would it matter?
2. Since God is always present in our Sunday gatherings, are we looking for Him?

I hope those questions make a positive shift in your preparation for Sunday and your leadership of God's people on Sunday.


-------------------------
*I have many Reformed friends who would object to the term 'Evangelical' as applying to them. Not based on theological objections, but for historical and stylistic (emphasis) reasons. So I will continue to distinguish these two streams, understanding 'Reformed' as that group that emerged primarily from Calvinists in Europe, and 'Evangelical' as those that emerged from American Fundamentalism, when that movement needed to turn outward toward mission and evangelism. These terms are sometimes used in different ways by different people; even some Pentecostals see themselves as Evangelical, despite the distinct ways those movements came into being.

Leadership in the Kingdom

There is really a lot more to this topic than what I'm going to write today. But I wanted to write about the heart of Kingdom leadership, because it's a topic that is widely misunderstood not only among Reformed, charismatic and Pentecostal leaders, but the western church in general (IMHO, of course).

Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. (Luke 22:24–26)

This is Jesus' clearest teaching on leadership. Yet we often miss what He is saying to us in it because of our assumptions. Hopefully what follows will clarify some of this for us.

Magisterial Leadership

In the church today there are some common assumptions about leadership that have crept in over time that actually do violence to the passage above. There is an idea of leadership that assumes, without reflection, that leadership means getting other people to do what the leader wants. This is the model for leadership that most often comes to mind when someone talks about "strong leadership skills." A strong leader is someone who, through force of personality or skills of persuasion is particularly good at getting people to do what he or she believes should be done. The model of church leader as CEO, which crept into the church from the business world, is what we're talking about here.

Some people like these sorts of leaders and are attracted to them. They want this kind of "strong leadership" because it feels so good to be under such a confident person. It meshes with our assumptions about humility and submission to authority, and so we justify it on spiritual grounds as well. But I think we like these kinds of leaders because they absolve us of responsibility for our own decisions: we let them make our decisions for us.

Such leaders do not think of themselves as abusing their authority at all. As in the quote above from Jesus, they call themselves 'Benefactors' and believe to the core of their being that they are leading for the benefit of those they lead. It may be lonely at the top, but that is a burden they are willing to bear for the sake of those who need to be led (and by led, they understand: telling them what they should do). But I think these sorts of leaders are actually serving their own vision for the Church much more than than Jesus' vision for His people.

I believe that such a view of leadership, as it exists in the Church, is directly connected with one's view of God. For those who understand God as One who holds His power over people in order to get them to do His will, that God rules and reigns over everything by enforcing His authority through His power, believe that this is the way authority works and is supposed to work in the Church as well. For these folks the authority exercised by pastors, elders, etc., is authority delegated from the top down for the purpose of compelling, if not requiring, compliance and obedience to God's ways.

I also believe that such a view of leadership is connected to one's understanding of the human condition of those in Christ. That is, such a view generally assumes that people, at the core of their being, are sinful and their sin needs to be restrained.

This is called the Magisterial View of church leadership. Church leaders then are seen as magistrates who rule on behalf of, and under the authority of the King of the Church for the purpose of maintaining order and discipline, and administering the laws and will of that King.

Those living with these assumptions about leadership, about believers, and about God will often think of themselves as servant leaders, considering their willingness to lead--in all the ways that isolates them from others ("it's lonely at the top")--as a kind of selfless service they offer others. Many under such leadership would agree.

By now, you may assume that I'm not supportive of that view of leadership, nor that view of God or who we are in Christ. You'd be right.

Servant Leadership

So, if leadership in the Kingdom isn't "telling people what to do," what is it? Let me state it briefly using a definition I heard, and then explain further. Leadership in the Kingdom is not about holding authority over people but under them.*

In Ephesians 4:11-13, Paul explains the purpose of leadership and authority in the Church as the preparation of God's people for works of service (v.12). Paul goes on to state the ultimate goal being that believers attain to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (v.13). That is leadership exists for the sake of body of believers, not the other way around.

Now that word translated "prepare" in the NIV(84), is better translated as most other modern translations have it (including the NIV2011): "equip." To equip someone is to give them what they need to accomplish something. Now what's clear here is that what they are equipped for is works of service. It does not mean, and cannot be translated "equip...with works of service," that is: give them a job to do. The Scripture assumes that they already have one, probably given along with their spiritual gifts.

The task of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers is to give people what they need to do the works of service God is calling them to. This is quite the opposite of giving people what they need to accomplish the "works of service" God gave the leader.

To lord it over (from the passage above) is the verb related to the Greek noun for Lord (κύριος), which means "owner or master." When we lord it over someone, we become their master, their lord. Like a slave owner, it is the right of the master to tell the slave what to do. We don't want to do that! Jesus is Lord, not church leaders. And Jesus doesn't call His followers slaves, but friends!

...but not so with you...

In saying "not so with you," Jesus is telling His disciples that we should not take our cues about leadership from the world--not from government, not from the military, and (in our day, I would add) not from business. There is a temptation to look at how other successful leaders lead successfully (outside the Church) and follow their example. But Jesus says ...not so with you...

Our cues need to come from Jesus Himself, Who did not come to be served but to serve (Mark 10:45). He empowered those around Him with authority to do what He was doing, first the 12 (Luke 9:1-2, e.g.) and then 72 others  (Luke 10:1), presumably with the same authority, since they had the same assignment.

In Ephesians 5:23, the husband (acting as head of the wife, as Christ is head of the church) is to imitate Christ who, as head of the church, gave Himself up for her. That is, the sort of headship he is to exercise is the self-giving, self-sacrificing kind--in imitation of Christ. This is leadership in the Kingdom of God.

The view of God that drives this view of leadership is that God is a Father who loves to see His children succeed at what He calls them to. That God equips us with everything good for doing His will (Heb.13:21). That God is not so much over us as with us; not so much telling us what to do as inviting us to join Him in His work.

Such leaders understand that who we are in Christ is, at the core of who we are, good; that the old, sinful self has been displaced by the new self. Such leaders believe that God's Spirit is actually producing the fruit of righteousness in people, and while this is still a process, it is well under way. Such leaders understand that people don't need to be controlled as much as encouraged to be who we really are in Christ: God's workmanship [masterpiece], created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do (Eph. 2:10).

A Few Practical Examples

What does this really look like? It's one thing to say what not to do, and another to show the alternative.

It looks like a pastor stepping aside from a favorite task, to make room for a member beginning to come into his/her own as a leader. It looks like a worship leader, passing the mic to someone with potential (but still less skill) who needs the experience of leading worship to come into their own. It looks like a leader encouraging a member to step into a position that they are nervous about, even though the leader believes they are ready. It looks like the seasoned leader counseling the new leader not to give up, even though they've just made a major blunder - not stepping in to fix it, but equipping the new leader to know how to "clean up their own mess."

It also looks like a leader who celebrates the accomplishments of those who are coming into their own, finding their own ministries, finding their own 'voice' in teaching -- even when the leader knows he/she could have done better themselves. It looks like the leader who comes to the defense of someone who risked stepping out, and became the object of someone's criticism (even when the critic has a point).

It looks like a leader cleaning up the kitchen so that the person who usually does it is freed up to step into a ministry better suited to his/her gifts. It looks like a leader letting a 'pet project' die, because those making it work with him/her are better suited for other ministries.

It looks like Jesus sending out 12 and later 72 others with authority, long before they really knew what His ministry was all about, and Who He really was. It looks like God empowering the frightened and ill-equipped disciples with the Holy Spirit so that they would become who they were destined to be. It looks like Paul encouraging a young Timothy to be true to his calling and his identity in Christ, reminding Him of what God had said about him and given to him -- believing in Timothy, when it seems young Timothy was not believing in himself. It's Paul refusing to tell Philemon what to do about Onesimus, while opening a door for Philemon to display what his faith really meant in the context of his relationship with Onesimus.

This sort of leadership requires that leaders believe that God's people are trustworthy in their deepest selves. The other sort of leadership usually betrays a belief that people are sinful in their deepest selves. To some extent both have a point. But the servant leader believes the One in us is always ultimately stronger than the sin in us.

Sometimes We Serve by Leading

There comes a time when a decision has to be made that affects the larger group, perhaps an entire congregation, or even a denomination. Such decisions come in times of crisis, and sometimes are simply matters of procedure or policy. At such times the decision may not please everyone, in fact it probably won't.

The point of servant leadership is not to please people, but to equip them for works of service. In those ways we lead by serving. But at times we need to serve by leading. Let me explain.

Leaders who are part of the governance structure of an organization need to make decisions that relate to how that organization functions. Will we baptize the children of believers, or believers only? Will we accept women as elders or not? Will we support this mission cause, or that one? Should the carpet be blue or red? Shall we meet at 10am or 9:30am? The list goes on.

Sometimes in these discussions a polarization can happen among the leaders, or among the congregation (or other members of the organization). The longer indecision lasts, the greater the potential for polarization.

As a former volunteer firefighter, one of the things I learned early on is that in a crisis situation it is better to make a decision quickly than ponder which decision would be best. We can always adjust the plan as we go, and we can always learn from our mistakes. In those cases, the officer makes a plan and assigns duties so that the task can be accomplished: the officer serves by leading.

In the Church too often we ponder and ponder... and ponder some more, trying to avoid making a mistake. But sometimes the bigger mistake is to do all you can to avoid making one! There are times when it is better to move forward and adjust as you go, than to only go forward if you're sure it's the best course of action.

I'm convinced it's better for those entrusted with making that decision, pray for God's wisdom and make a decision based on their best understanding of God's will. There are a dozen traps to avoid here, and discussing them all would require another post. However, let me say this: unless all the power to make the decision rests with those in the room, entrusted with making it, expect trouble. The servant leader will always refuse to be manipulated, since that just makes someone else a master, and we only allow for one master in the Church: Jesus.

This blog is already longer than I originally intended. There is so much more to say on this topic, but I really must get on with my day.

-------------------------
*That's not original, but I don't remember who is the source for this quote.